Question re. 109s handling

[BraveSirRobin]

I'm not, I'm sticking to the 109 footage on it's own merit, a few seconds of cine film taken from the ground is not going to see much change of perspective.

 

Really?  You can probably turn completely around in 2 seconds.  All the person taking that video has to do is turn about 45 degrees and it changes the perspective significantly.  Not to mention that you know absolutely nothing about the aircraft being filmed.  It's really laughable that anyone thinks that video is significant.

[AX2]

In fairness to the OP, from where I'm standing, there's not a lot anyone can say that can refute the evidence shown in the video.

 

The angle of the wings, clearing showing the underside, is quite obvious and shows the manoeuvre beyond dispute, regardless of the position of the camera shooting the footage.

Thank you very muy , for your neutrality. 

 

Yeah, I'm sure the Nazi cameraman was having a creative day and wanted to muck around with new techniques that day.

 

Thank you very muy , for your neutrality.  

 

This ends her for me.  

Edited June 5, 2014 by Mustang

[RR1357]

Perspective is important FFS.

[Nonolem]

Sorry, Mustang, but you need to learn about perspective. The clip you posted does not support anything you want to support.

 

Watch this clip from an Ariane 5 launch

 

 

From 1:37 you see the rocket with its exhaust gas that indicate the trajectory (roughly). As you can see the trail starts out horizontally but then turns apparently downwards. This is a simple effect of a moving object passing by a static observer. I can assure you the rocket still zooms up and does neither turn left or right. 

 

 

From 00:00 to 00:59 : Nice Toulousan accent.

[Tab]

the problem with the whole ww2 footage is that it always either gets speed up or slown down during 1000 material conversions that occured since 60 years. We know nothing about how long the manoeuvre really took. Measuring seconds and then angles is just not a very smart thing to do.

Also claiming that negative g manoeuvres are just not possible in the game with the 109 is not helping the discussion.

[Panzerlang]

The problem isn't that you're showing what you find, the problem is that the stuff you're finding doesn't show anything useful.  

 

What an incredibly asinine comment. It absolutely does show something useful, it's perfect proof of what most of us, and the devs, know (and have acknowledged).

 

Period.

[Tab]

Ok so here is a video of performing a negative G dive.

watch and learn.

In case it was too fast for you or you think I just had huge luck, here are two more.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2014 by Tab

[Streiff]

OK, so it's a guy standing on the ground.  Have you ever tried to video aircraft from the ground?  I have.  You have to move the camera to do it.  Unless you know exactly how the camera moved, the video is useless.  The donkey balls video does a pretty good job of explaining why.

 

Please explain how a camera man would move, the camera or him self, to get the effect shown in the film.

 

Not everything has to be a bloody mystery, not everything is lost in the twilight zone just because "you" weren't there.

[BraveSirRobin]

What an incredibly asinine comment. It absolutely does show something useful, it's perfect proof of what most of us, and the devs, know (and have acknowledged).

 

Period.

 

Interesting.  So you know absolutely nothing about how fast that aircraft is going, how much energy it has, or even it's motion relative to the photographer, but that short clip shows you everything you need to confirm what you already believe.  How could anyone possibly argue with that sort of evidence...

Please explain how a camera man would move, the camera or him self, to get the effect shown in the film.

 

All he has to do is turn the camera and a climbing plane becomes a diving plane.

[AX2]

@ Tab

Your dive takes 6 seconds, "  approximately " ( max angle of climb second 10 , max angle of dive second 16 )

 

Can you do this in 1.9 seconds ?  without losing the plane  control ?. 

If you can do that.

 

Please post the video , send me your horizontal stabilizer setting, your speed and your ata,  the height and fuel amount.

I'll be very thankful for use in multiplayer, truly 

I'm not fighting with you , really.  

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2014 by Mustang

[Nonolem]

 Note that with positive G you have the same phenomenon in the other side (left wing is raising then), a bit less but it is there. Maybe the propeller torque is a bit exaggerated? If you have tested a lot of planes with rotative engines in RoF, you know what it is...

Remember it's a 51% finished game... One of the little things that may have to be fixed... or not. I don't know how a real Me 109 was flying. I am confident that, if it is incorrect, it will be fixed.

[BraveSirRobin]

Ok so here is a video of performing a negative G dive.

 

That plane isn't performing a negative g dive, it's floating in space.  Solid proof that the 109 could float motionless!!!.  

[Tab]

Yor dive take 6 seconds, also  

Can you do this in 1.9 seconds ?

 

 

 

Ok, I will try in language you understand:

[Streiff]

Ok so here is a video of performing a negative G dive.

watch and learn.

In case it was too fast for you or you think I just had huge luck, here are two more.

 

 

 

 

How many eggs did you have under the joystick when you did that clip?

[Tab]

How many eggs did you have under the joystick when you did that clip?

I feel there is a reference to the donkey balls video I posted before, but I don't understand what's it exactly   But I guess none. No eggs at all.

[DD_bongodriver]

No, sorry guys but I'm now convinced, we just have to go and re write history, the Luftwaffe really lost the battle of Britain because  in actual fact a 109 'couldn't' do a negative g bunt to evade the RAF and their infamous merlin 'cough'

[sturmkraehe]

Isn't this a bit obsessive to repost again and again that something is wrong with the FM?

 

The devs have clearly said that they will take a second go on the 109 FM (and said so not just yesterday). So why repeating the same thing over and over again? Just wait and see what will be the outcome when they have done this. Of course if you'd be a 5 year old child you'd want to have it immediately but we are all adults here so I guess you can wait until the devs will phase this in their workflow when it fits their internal planning. 

 

If the FM is not fixed on release you can reopen new threads about the 109 FM.

 

EDIT: I don't say it did not do negative g in this clip I just say we cannot be really sure because camera movement influences what we see (this movement will likely be a combination of translational movement and rotation about at least two axis). Also changing reflexion is not indicator because the reflexion you see varies also because the plane moves and thus the angle sun-plane-camera changes which could explain that little change in brightness. Did not notive any other light effects. 

Edited June 5, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[AX2]

@ Tab I just see your first video , frame by frame.

I MUST repeat:

Please

Your dive takes 6 seconds, "  approximately " 

( max angle of climb second 10 , max angle of dive second 16 )

 

Can you do this in 1.9 seconds ?  without losing the plane  control ?.  

If you can do that.

 

Please post the video , send me your horizontal stabilizer setting, your speed and your ata,  the height and fuel amount. AT EXPERT SETTINGS   

I'll be very thankful for use in multiplayer, truly    

I'm not fighting with you , really.     

 

Edited June 5, 2014 by Mustang

[Streiff]

Cant believe it hasn't entered my mind until now.

 

What kind of maneuver did German pilots perform, one of many, in an attempt to get a Spit/Hurricane of their 6.

 

 

Anyone?

 

 

Edit:

 

Lol Bongodriver, thats plain scary.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Baron

[Tab]

 

@ Tab I just see your first video , frame by frame.

I MUST repeat:

Please

Your dive takes 6 seconds, "  approximately " ( max angle of climb second 10 , max angle of dive second 16 )

 

Can you do this in 1.9 seconds ?  without losing the plane  control ?.  

If you can do that.

 

Please post the video , send me your horizontal stabilizer setting, your speed and your ata,  the height and fuel amount.

I'll be very thankful for use in multiplayer, truly    

I'm not fighting with you , really.   

 

you do realize that max angles of climb and dive are chosen by me randomly. In the last video the both takes are 2 seconds long. With lower speed it would be even less.

My settings are here:

 

just do not jerk the stick

 

I hope it was helpful, see you in the skies.

[Brano]

How many eggs did you have under the joystick when you did that clip?

 

As for me,I have always my stick and 2 eggs with me

[AX2]

The devs have clearly said that they will take a second go on the 109 FM (and said so not just yesterday).

Some forum users say that .. 

Developers ??? 

 

The game is basically :

All aircraft in the world at WWII against 109 and 190. The game begins and end here, not more  and not less !

 

If one of those 2 aircraft ( 109 and 190 ) will be taken into account for changes at FM ,should be said in bold in at developer diary. I guess.   

I saw nothing 

Edited June 5, 2014 by Mustang

[DD_bongodriver]

do not jerk the stick or you will break the eggs.

[Brano]

Some forum users say that .. 

Developers ??? 

 

The game is basically :

All aircraft in the world at WWII against 109 and 190. The game begins and end here, not more  and not less !

 

If one of those 2 aircraft ( 109 and 190 ) will be taken into account for changes at FM ,should be said in bold in at developer diary. I guess.   

I saw nothing 

Yes,exactly,it is russian conspiracy to eventualy rule all the virtual sky in the world   

[pixelshader]

The 109 can pull enough neg g for any practical purpose in multiplayer.

[BraveSirRobin]

Do you actually believe what you type or is it all typed just to get a reaction.

 

If you turn the camera doesn't the light and shade sort of give it away?

 

Or perhaps the cameraman has some method of manipulating the sun's light too whilst he's turning his camera.

 

How does the light change when your twist the camera?  The light has nothing to do with the angle of the camera.  The light depends on the object that reflects it.  Twisting the camera does nothing to change that.

 

Of course, that assumes the photographer isn't using a polarizing filter.  Then the light will change when you twist the camera.  But otherwise, there is no change in the light at all when you twist the camera.  

 

Unless you're assuming that the aircraft is climbing or diving depending on the light reflection off the wings.  In that case you need to have some idea where the sun is relative to the photographer, relative to the aircraft, and also the position of the aircraft relative to the photographer.  Good luck figuring all that out for that short film clip.

[FuriousMeow]

Some forum users say that .. 

Developers ??? 

 

The game is basically :

All aircraft in the world at WWII against 109 and 190. The game begins and end here, not more  and not less !

 

If one of those 2 aircraft ( 109 and 190 ) will be taken into account for changes at FM ,should be said in bold in at developer diary. I guess.   

I saw nothing 

 

The way you "fly" the 109 really should be brought forth before you question its peformance. I was on your six several times last night, and you zoomed away in a vertical climb, were getting away, and then leveled out at the top of the zoom to accelerate away. I shot at you just to make you panic. Which you did, and then you did this wierd cross control spin crap that always got you shot down.

 

It really isn't the 109 in your case.

 

Why would the 190 be taken into account for FM changes? Its not even released yet? That just makes no sense.

Edited June 5, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[BraveSirRobin]

Exactly. So we agree.

 

Now watch the clip again and watch the shadow/light on the wing of the 109.

 

You can see, by the shadowing under the wing, that the plane changes incidence, from a climb to a dive.

 

If you can't see it then .. I give up trying to reason with this community. I'm starting to believe it's a lost cause.

 

I've watched it several times.  He appears to sustain some negative G's.  I have no idea how much, because there is no way to tell.  Are you saying that the BoS 109 won't sustain negative G's?  Or are you saying it can't sustain the same negative G load as the 109 in that video?  If that's the case, I'd be very interested to find out how you determined the G load of that aircraft.

[pixelshader]

Here is me doing a few neg g pushes (I can't think of any multiplayer situation I would want to do these, but the BoS 109 can still do it..), then, pretending someone appeared behind me at similar energy and I decide to use neg G as part of gun defense + diving away. I probably even pushed too hard, wasting energy.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

But a moment ago you were talking about the cameraman turning the camera to somehow fake the video.

 

 

I never said anything about faking the video, I said that you can't get any useful info from the video. That still holds.  "109 can sustain negative G's", which is all we really learn from that video, isn't exactly useful info.

[BraveSirRobin]

lol no you didn't.

 

 

No, I didn't.  Look at the context of that post.  I was talking in general terms about how the angle of the camera can change the perception of what you see.

 

In any case, I'm really looking forward to how you figured out the negative G load of the aircraft in the video.  That should be fascinating.

[Bassly]

Ok ok, I'll help you with the sun. Now it should be easier to define the camera position to plane and plane position to sun.

 

[Bassly]

Yes, when the sun was beneath the plane there would be a shadow beneath the wing. ermmmm. OK.

 

Must be because of negative Gs.

[DD_bongodriver]

It's photoshopped.........yeah that's the answer.......Photoshop.

[AX2]

It's photoshopped.........yeah that's the answer.......Photoshop.

 

[AX2]

Hold on, Photoshop wasn't available in the 40s.

 

 

No ?    ..... 

 

 

[DD_bongodriver]

Oh and how much time have you got on 1940's photoshop then? You weren't in the 1940's so how do you know they didn't have photoshop, your modern day experience with modern photoshop is irrelevant.

[BraveSirRobin]

Look, I think it's great that we have definitive video proof that the 109 could sustain negative G's  Great find!!  I'm sure the dev team will find that info extremely useful.  

[DD_bongodriver]

General terms....was he allied or axis?

[AX2]

Look, I think it's great that we have definitive video proof that the 109 could sustain negative G's  Great find!!  I'm sure the dev team will find that info extremely useful.  

it is sure better than nothing